If you're not afraid of language Les, why are you so concerned about dog whistles?

If I had realized sooner that this was something that really got to you I would have said it sooner

It's interesting

Why would you say I'm concerned with dog-whistles? I was pointing out your concern for them, not mine. What is interesting is the entire claim of
dog-whistle politics, for instance that certain words are dog-whistles for racists, but then it always seems to be people like yourself who pick up on
them.

Well, I guess it is true. When a country gives up their guns, they start to lose their free speech too. Australia and much of Europe, being pretty
much the perfect example of a glove that fits more perfect than any other ever has.

Get your guns back people, and then you can say whatever you want again.

Truer words have never been spoken. Being arrested for speech, or calling out a corrupt politician, like in the UK is a progression from being
disarmed.
I'll bet that not in the too distant future more laws will be added that further protect authority from challenges of their actions and policies, and
maybe in the future it could be a capital crime to do so. In China they do in fact kill people who speak ill against the party. Some they just jail
and torture.

Why would you say I'm concerned with dog-whistles? I was pointing out your concern for them, not mine. What is interesting is the entire claim
of dog-whistle politics, for instance that certain words are dog-whistles for racists, but then it always seems to people like yourself who pick up on
them.

There you go. Good lad - not drunk after all. And not lazy either

I mentioned it once - you kept bringing it back. So, there you go. Obvious hot button is obvious :-)

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I really dislike the term "snowflake". It gets applied to people who so much as voice the idea that they feel offended about something.

the snowflake thing is being overused now, I agree. its basically a blanket term used for anyone expressing offense..and there are things in the world
that will be taken as offended. I try to only use it when people try to make rules to protect them from being offended, be it demanding universities
not allow controversial speakers from being invited, or in this case laws enacted that would arrest and imprison people for speaking like a jerk
online and anyone who supports it, etc..

I am offended by many things. racism, blatant sexism, etc..typical lib stuff. I want people to be classier in society, but I am more offended at
people trying to get people fired over harmless jokes (donglegate) and pushing for legal action against thoughts and words online

funny, but i think if you asked the man who made the comments, his answers would be real answers, and he would say exactly what he meant. not cowardly
grammatical technicalities high priced lawyers would use on defense against possibly someone who acted on what they posted online...

lulz..

I have no doubt the guy is most likely racist, I was just splitting hairs and showing how his comments actually could also be seen as not racist at
all..context tends to matter, and intent.
I got the spirit of a lawyer in me I suppose.

If someone wants to say something without using the words they really want to be able to say - they just dog whistle. But you already knew that

It's not exactly a tough code to crack though - is it? If it were it wouldn't work

Well no, "dog-whistle" politics is a propaganda technique used to deride the views of others. It only works to pretend people are speaking in secret
code. However, the claim that people are speaking in secret code to each other is not only hilarious, but cowardly and meaningless.

originally posted by: Sargeras
Why as you say would " only an idiot would say such a thing publically about a government official "?

I don't get your meaning.

Even if it wasn't against the law, to publicly use racial and sexist insults against a government official is going to bring unwanted attention.
Unless he wanted the attention, I think it's a foolish thing to do. It's like carrying a gun into an airport. Only an idiot...

Well no, "dog-whistle" politics is a propaganda technique used to deride the views of others. It only works to pretend people are speaking in secret
code. However, the claim that people are speaking in secret code to each other is not only hilarious, but cowardly and meaningless.

Actually, quite a bit. Believe it or not I've studied it quite a bit in the hopes of writing about it, though I never posted or published it and no
longer intend to. But for your pleasure:

Dog-Whistle Politics

Donald Trump has been called the Pied-Piper of Dog-whistle politics, which is fitting since the whole Republican party has been charged for engaging
in dog-whistle politics for quite some time. The dubious insinuation in that charge is that Trump and the Republicans are speaking in secret code to
racists, whom I wager are hiding in the bushes, like dogs, awaiting the long-awaited sound to bring in the coming race war.

The thing about a dog whistle is that only dogs can hear it. So when I am lead to believe that the right is engaged in “dog-whistle politics”, I
have to wonder why these sounds seem to ring so loud in the ears of the left.

According to anti-conservative author Ian Haney Lopez’s book “Dog Whistle Politics”, when Nixon spoke of “Law and Order”, he was secretly
passing messages to racist via inaudible code. To the racist hounds who were able to pick up on this covert racism, “Law” meant race and
“Order” means anti-activism, as they tend to do.

When Paul Ryan had the audacity to link poverty to a “ tailspin of culture”, especially in the “inner cities in particular”, “of men not
working” and “generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work”, the words magically morphed
into the inaudible sound of a racist dog whistle. Rep. Barbara Lee’s recognized this inaudible sound as a “thinly-veiled racial attack”, and
that when Ryan spoke of “inner-city” and “culture”, he surreptitiously meant “black”. According to Ryan, race never crossed his mind.
Nonetheless, to the ears of racists, he was secretly speaking about black people this whole time.

Jimmy Carter knew all too well that the animosity against President Obama from the right was because he was a black man, and not because of his
policies, as has traditionally been the case. Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center agreed. "I think what President Carter said is precisely
what is going on. I am not saying that everyone involved in opposing healthcare reform is a Klansman in disguise, but it is the elephant in the room."
Congressman Henry Johnson echoed his statements. "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through
the countryside." The RNC chairman at the time and obvious racist Michael Steele denied the accusations.

Alex Hern, technology reporter for the Guardian, wrote on the subject of Republican dog whistles for the New Statesman. When a Mitt Romney aide
commented that Romney would be a better president than Obama because be better understood the Anglo-Saxon heritage that Britain and America share,
Hern’s ears started ringing. “This sort of statement is known in politics as a ‘dog whistle’,” he wrote. “To most people, it looks
innocuous, if a bit weird, but to its target audience – in this case, racists – it reads as a perfectly clear statement that Romney is better
than Obama because he is white.” And there you have it.

While it is probably true that there is a pack of racists out there making connections between such statements and racial stereotypes, the insidious
assumption that the right are secretly speaking to racists in some sort of hidden inaudible code is a reckless and sloppy fantasy.

Rather, it appears the only racists able to both hear and translate the racist messages are the very same ones who always claim “dog-whistle
politics”. To the extent that it is only they and perhaps some unscrupulous racists who are connecting irrelevant words to irrelevant racial
stereotypes, it must be conceded that the dogs in tune to the racist dog-whistle are the very ones making such suspicious connections

Of course not. Unverifiable assertions and bold claims—basically lies—to poison the well of your political opponents. Pushing the agenda of your
clan forward, but worse than that, through spineless methods.

You would be even more surprised how they also hide behind anti-defamation laws - they bankrupt you in the courts. We have no bill of rights and only
"implied" freedom in our Constitution, Basically we are still a military run colony.

technically we are a constitutional Monarchy and our Government can be sacked by the Governor-General...Appointed by the Queen of England

I guess that is what concerns me about some in our nation wanting to be more like the rest of the westernized world. I like my freedom of speech and
America. Other nations seem to be coming more authoritan states under the philosophy of offend no one!

Of course not. Unverifiable assertions and bold claims—basically lies—to poison the well of your political opponents. Pushing the agenda of your
clan forward, but worse than that, through spineless methods.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.